Followers of the dissenting religious tradition have a crucial role to play in bringing ethical and visionary rigour to bear on democratic thinking in a new political era, says Jill Segger

The phenomenon of “groupthink”, which was identified by the social psychologist Irving Janis in the 1970s, has the potential to affect the moral judgement of most individuals. We are all members of groupings – religious, familial, local, cultural, professional and political, to name just a few. Wherever we are in close association with others whose backgrounds and outlooks are similar, or with whom we may be joined in a common cause, there is a danger of becoming isolated from outside opinions and from the morally intelligent consideration of alternative views.

Members of the group become convinced of the rightness of their beliefs, to the detriment of considering the consequences of their decisions; they will tend to exclude evidence which might contradict or call into question the collective opinion, and they put pressure on others to refrain from expressing disagreement. This often leads to self-doubt and self-censorship and the majority view eventually comes to be seen as the only reality.

A chilling example of this collective failure of will and intellect was revealed by the Chilcot Inquiry into the decision-making processes of the Blair cabinet and its circle of advisors, which led to the country being taken to war on a false prospectus in the teeth of widespread opposition from outside the “group”. Dissent was marginalised and information which might have challenged the insider consensus was suppressed.

The account given by the former international development secretary, Claire Short, illustrates the process of isolation as she described being “jeered at” and forbidden to discuss the attorney general’s advice. It is also a sorry example of the self-censorship that results from group pressure – Short did not speak out or resign from the cabinet until eight weeks after the invasion. The late Robin Cook was the only minister who had sufficient clarity and moral certitude to enable him to resist the group and make a principled resignation before the war began.

New political landscape

The anger and dismay at the manner upon which this illegal war was undertaken has been a powerful influence in forming the new political landscape reflected in the result of the general election. The group failed to think morally or democratically on Iraq and for similar reasons over a longer period of time, to bring a morally-informed and objective judgement to bear on MPs expenses.

Now, in combination with the necessity for compromise and dialogue which comes with coalition, there is a need for a less tribal approach to democratic thinking. It seems that the group mind of many politicians struggles to understand this new reality. Pressure exerted by collective habits of thought (which to some extent are necessary to make political cohesion and identity possible) has already been manifested in its most negative form by those Labour politicians who were unable to meet changed circumstances with changed thinking. Seeking security in the group in the aftermath of electoral defeat, a significant number of senior figures were unable to respond with the moral and intellectual independence that would have opened the way to the possibility of a progressive alliance between Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

The kind of discernment which most of us are called upon to exercise is not concerned with making war or with the formation of governments. But we are constantly faced with making decisions which carry a moral charge and which cannot be well made without a certain independence of mind. In weighing lifestyle choices and purchasing decisions or in making professional judgements, we may be influenced by a desire to avoid rocking the boat, by the placing of self-interest before critical analysis or by a fear of moving outside the security of the group which influences those decisions. I believe that for politicians, businesses and private citizens alike, the dissenting tradition offers the best safeguard against the loss of moral identity which comes from failing to audit the group mind.

Dissent and the individual

The dissenting conscience, nurtured in non-conformist religion and radical politics, was formed by centuries of resistance to power and establishment. Its adherents were varied: non-conformists deprived of religious and cultural freedom under legislation such as the Clarendon Code and the Five Mile Act, recusant Catholics, suffragettes, trade union pioneers and conscientious objectors – all had to develop an obstinate and singular integrity to survive in both the individual and corporate sense.

We no longer face the imprisonment, dispossession or disenfranchisement experienced by our forbears, but in these easier times, the spirit persists – many reared in the tradition will still have recourse to moral rallying calls remembered from childhood; “Dare to be a Daniel, dare to stand alone. Dare to have a purpose firm, dare to make it known” has stiffened many a spine and inspired the speaking of truth to self and to power through several generations.

The term “non-conformist conscience” is often used pejoratively to imply a certain narrowness: a partial view which devalues its capacity to draw upon a tradition of radical integrity and to be a sign of principled contradiction, whatever the cost. Properly understood, that tradition makes us the heirs of freedom in a society which is becoming ever more conformist in its desperate pursuit of individualism.

The Eighth Commandment of the Socialist Sunday Schools – a movement founded in a dissent and owing more to Wesley than to Marx – encapsulates the disciplined freedom of the dissenting conscience: “Observe and think in order to discover the truth. Do not believe what is contrary to reason, and never deceive yourself or others”. It is a precious heritage in which to raise our children and make our own ethical choices.

Jill Segger is a freelance journalist and associate director of the Ekklesia thinktank on religion in public life

This article appeared in the September 2010 issue of Reform.

Subscribe to Reform

Related articles:

1. Notes from America – Ron Buford: Seeking a new social paradigm
2. Seeking sanctuary
3. What is church for?
4. Marilynne Robinson interview: The faith behind the fiction
5. Jim Wallis interview: “Moral recovery has to come first”

Follow @Reform_Mag